Dynojet- What is more accurate Smoothing of 5 or 0 ?

[snoop]

I was playing with Winpep software (Dynojet free software) and compared my best 91 run with best 100 run on my 03 EVO.

With Smoothing of "5"

91
WHP 298.53
TQ 299.14

100
WHP 322.96
TQ 311.28


With Smoothing of "0"

91
WHP 300.73
TQ 303.84

100
WHP 324.58
TQ 316.10


If I go buy the "0" I make more power but is this really more accurate?

[Blak94GSX]

Actually 0 is more accurate as it shows the raw output, but the numbers account for spikes. Smoothing at 5 makes the curve look better.

The problem with peak numbers is they don't take into account the whole powerband. If you get a lot of boost spike initially and then the boost falls off from there, the usable power curve is very poor but the peak numbers will look impressive.

[alex_alex]

Actually 0 is more accurate as it shows the raw output, but the numbers account for spikes. Smoothing at 5 makes the curve look better.

The problem with peak numbers is they don't take into account the whole powerband. If you get a lot of boost spike initially and then the boost falls off from there, the usable power curve is very poor but the peak numbers will look impressive.

Snoop . . . have some guys running the s-afc tomorrow at the dyno day with the same mods as you send you their dynojet files, and you can compare the power under the curve between the two ;)

[Absinthe]

Actually 0 is more accurate as it shows the raw output, but the numbers account for spikes. Smoothing at 5 makes the curve look better.

The problem with peak numbers is they don't take into account the whole powerband. If you get a lot of boost spike initially and then the boost falls off from there, the usable power curve is very poor but the peak numbers will look impressive.

Snoop . . . have some guys running the s-afc tomorrow at the dyno day with the same mods as you send you their dynojet files, and you can compare the power under the curve between the two ;)

power under the curve???

is pete around here?